George Sollish writes:
- On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Chris Pinnock wrote:
- > I would personally not use bash for a root shell. This is because it
- > usually sits in the /usr partition. I want root to be able to run a shell
- > even if the /usr partition gets corrupted - so I stick with /bin/csh. 
- > (Actually, the first thing I do as root is usually type exec 
- > /usr/pkg/bin/bash, but that's another story...)
- 
- Good point about the package system installing bash in /usr, but couldn't
- we bash-users have the best of all possible worlds by moving bash to /bin
- and, if we're paranoid about space on /, moving one or more of the
- (unused) default shells back to /usr/pkg?
	
	The other half of the problem is that bash is dynamically
linked, and you don't have the shared libraries when /usr isn't
mounted.

	You _really_want_ the root shell to be statically linked.
I fully expect to get a fairly limited shell when booting single
user..  Furthermore, the rc script expect sh to do their
processing.

	Good Grief!  I just checked the sizes of the statically
linked shells, and /bin/sh is _not_ the smallest!  Time to go
read the sh manpage and see what `features' have been added to
the NetBSD edition of sh.. (quite a surprise to someone who grew
up expecting /bin/sh to be pretty much the v7 version..)

--
Eric Schnoebelen		eric@cirr.com		http://www.cirr.com
        Friendships are fragile things, and require as much handling as
	any other fragile and precious thing.  -Randolph S. Bourne